I second Georg here. These comments probably aren't meant to criticize, they are just dry observations from a compiler writer. And they're true (well, at least the first one is). However:
"""Python pretends to be an OO-based language yet it is really a hashtable-based that creates an illusion of OO-oriented programming. For simple programs, this works all right but most Pythonistas seem to actually exploit the translucent nature of objects and classes. It is a hopeless task to reason about modules or program pieces in this language."""
Yes, that's really all what objects are about, they're dicts with some sugar and special rules. Some people think that "true" OO is the way Java, C++ or Eiffel do it... maybe this compiler writer is one of them. I disagree; at least Smalltalk's notion of OO was never like that.
I read a paper a few months ago, stating that OO doesn't fulfill its promises *because* Java, C++ and the like twisted it, turning something that was originally dynamic into a static and rigid mechanism.
It's understandable that a compiler writer would like to reason about "modules or program pieces"; most Python programmers don't feel the need for this, though. I guess they'd much rather just *use* the language. :-)